Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

I had a similar experience today on another forum where there was a thread about the APA's new guidelines on clinical practice with men and boys. Because the paper contained some language that is commonly perceived as "SJW" and because it pointed out problems with traditional masculinity, the right is currently losing their shit over it and framing it as misandrist radfem propaganda. I realized there was nothing I could say that would change the minds of these poor triggered snowflakes, so I decided to say fuck it and stopped trying.

mōdgethanc wrote:I had a similar experience today on another forum where there was a thread about the APA's new guidelines on clinical practice with men and boys. Because the paper contained some language that is commonly perceived as "SJW" and because it pointed out problems with traditional masculinity, the right is currently losing their shit over it and framing it as misandrist radfem propaganda. I realized there was nothing I could say that would change the minds of these poor triggered snowflakes, so I decided to say fuck it and stopped trying.

You don't think the APA deserves any of the flack they're getting? I don't follow these issues closely, but this seems like a fair criticism:

I think the APA set themselves up for the right to use them as a punching bag by using "woke" rhetoric about privilege, intersectionality, and microaggressions. However it was all cited with copious amounts of research and their conclusions weren't that radical. The backlash is from men who mistakenly believe their whole identity is being threatened. Of course a conservative publication is going to get worked up about an alleged attack on gender roles. But the problem is with the way the APA framed it more than the content.

David French then redefines traditional masculinity to mean good things and ignores the bad things about it in his piece, which is just the opposite of what the APA did.

I have seen some legitimate criticisms of the paper, such as that it approaches gender from a social point of view and doesn't discuss biology. It's also possible that the research they based on it was low quality or ideologically driven. But for the most part, it just looks like more outrage culture to me.

"Imagine if the government were responsible for looking after your best interests. All of your assets must be managed by bureaucrats on your behalf. A special bureau is even set up to oversee your affairs. Every important decision you make requires approval, and every approval comes with a mountain of regulations.

How well would this work? Just ask Native Americans."

"One such difficulty is fractionated land ownership. Federal inheritance laws required many Indian lands to be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel. Managing these fractionated lands is nearly impossible, and much of the land remains idle."

"Tribes historically had little or no control over their energy resources. Royalties were set by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the agency consistently undervalued Indian resources. A federal commission concluded in 1977 that leases negotiated on behalf of Indians were “among the poorest agreements ever made.”

Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten much better. A recent class action suit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian assets. The case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion—far less than what was lost by the feds."